Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Your score will improve and your results will be more realistic
Is there something wrong with our timer?Let us know!
During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas
[#permalink]
Updated on: 30 May 2021, 20:50
4
Expert Reply
4
Bookmarks
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas plagued America’s foreign relations. One of the German justifications for its shoot-on-sight policy was the fragile U-boat’s vulnerability to armed vessels. To deal with this problem, in early 1916, Lansing proposed a modus vivendi: if the Allies agreed to disarm their merchant ships, the Germans would agree not to attack such vessels without warning and without protecting the safety of civilians. In effect, the submarine would act as a surface cruiser and observe the established rules of naval warfare.
Unwilling to surrender what they considered to be a right to arm surface vessels, the British rejected the proposal. Lansing quickly dropped the modus vivendi proposal. Unfortunately, he had opened a Pandora’s box. In explaining it to the German government, Lansing had implied that the American government regarded Allied armed merchant vessels as warships. This had been the Germans’ position all along, and they seized on the opening the Americans had created. The Germans informed the Americans that their U-boats would resume attacks on armed merchant vessels without prior warning.
These events alarmed the pacifists. The Wilson administration, by dropping the modus vivendi, seemed to be saying that it accepted the British position that armed merchant vessels were not warships. If this were so, then by the administration’s interpretation, Americans would have the right to travel on such vessels. Since the Germans now intended to attack them on sight, Wilson was almost guaranteeing a collision with Germany. To avoid such a confrontation, Representative Jeff Lars and Senator Tom Gore introduced resolutions forbidding American travel on armed ships. Wilson interpreted this as a challenge to his leadership in foreign affairs and a surrender of American rights. “For my own part,” Wilson wrote the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “I cannot consent to any abridgment of the rights of American citizens in any respect. Once we accept a single abatement of rights, many other humiliations would certainly follow, and the whole fine fabric of international law might crumble in our hands.” Congress backed down and tabled the Gore-Lars resolutions. Wilson’s victory over Congress would later be viewed as a pivotal incident since later attacks on U.S. shipping drew America into the war.
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
45% (02:13) correct
55% (03:15) wrong based on 31 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
1. Which of the following is the main topic of the passage?
(A) the role of American diplomacy in enforcing international laws concerning sea travel (B) how conflicts over control of the sea lanes helped lead to the outbreak of war (C) the effects on international relations of internal political conflicts in the United States (D) Wilson’s failure to accede in certain steps that could have prevented the United States’ involvement in war (E) the disagreement between the Germans and the Allies over the arming of ships and how it helped draw the United States into war
91% (00:27) correct
9% (01:18) wrong based on 33 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
2. What is the primary purpose of the passage?
(A) to defend Wilson’s ideals and non-compliance with Germany (B) to describe the US’s stance on naval warfare in WWI (C) to argue that Wilson could have prevented war by giving in to Germany’s demands (D) to compare the war strategies of the Germans and the Allies (E) to trace a disagreement between Germany and the Allies and show how it drew the US into war
75% (00:56) correct
25% (00:51) wrong based on 36 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
3. Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage?
(A) A conflict is presented, followed by its final result and decisions based upon that result. (B) A series of arguments is presented alongside the major players who created them. (C) An event in history is described, followed by an examination of the decisions that led up to this event. (D) A proposal is stated, followed by the reasons it should have been accepted. (E) A conflict is explored, followed by a description of its major players, decisions, and eventual result.
68% (00:46) correct
32% (00:56) wrong based on 34 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
4. The author implies that U.S. involvement in the war was caused:
(A) mainly by British political pressure on the United States. (B) chiefly by Wilson’s unwillingness to compromise his ideals. (C) primarily by German belligerence. (D) by a breakdown in international communications. (E) largely by unplanned and unintentional actions.
41% (01:11) correct
59% (01:32) wrong based on 32 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
6. It can be inferred from the passage that Lansing’s dropping of the modus vivendi proposal seemed to represent:
(A) a perceived reversal of the U.S. position on the status of armed merchant ships (B) a rejection of the British position concerning the rights of merchant vessels (C) an attempt to subsume the controversy under the general provisions of international law (D) a tacit acceptance of the German shoot-on-sight policy (E) an assertion of the right of the Allies to use merchant ships for the transportation of arms
84% (00:44) correct
16% (01:12) wrong based on 31 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
7. According to the passage, the Gore-Lars resolutions were introduced in an attempt to:
(A) conciliate the British. (B) avoid a confrontation with Germany. (C) appease pro-pacifist sentiment. (D) undercut the Allied bargaining position. (E) assert the rights of U.S. citizens on the seas.
75% (00:37) correct
25% (00:53) wrong based on 32 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
8. According to the passage, the U-boat was
(A) a formidable weapon against any type of surface warship. (B) relatively vulnerable to attack by surface vessels. (C) clearly subject to the same international laws that governed surface warships. (D) generally unable to inflict serious damage on large surface vessels. (E) considered by the Allies as subject to attack without warning.
71% (00:44) correct
29% (00:52) wrong based on 31 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
9. It can be inferred from the passage that Wilson regarded which of the following as most important?
(A) avoidance of U.S. involvement in war (B) upholding the rights granted by international law (C) suppression of congressional opposition (D) protection of the lives of U.S. citizens (E) maintenance of good relations between the United States and Britain
48% (00:59) correct
52% (01:08) wrong based on 29 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
10. For what reason does the author say that the dropping of the modus vivendi had alarmed the pacifists?
(A) to show that Wilson had few opponents (B) to show that some disagreed with Wilson (C) to show that peacemakers feared the Germans (D) to show that not everyone was against Germany (E) to show that America was in turmoil
Re: During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas
[#permalink]
08 Oct 2020, 06:12
2
Expert Reply
dpraneeth10 wrote:
Can aynone answer the 5 ??
Official Explanation
5. This passage most likely appeared in a:
Difficulty Level: Hard
Explanation
(B) The focus of the passage is on neutral sea rights. The conflict ensues between the Allies and the Germans over this issue. Thus the passage is likely to appear in a place that deals with naval subject matter.
(A) is wrong because if it were a journalistic article it would probably have a more contemporaneous perspective. Also, the passage deals with a historical period too long ago to be news-appropriate.
(C) is wrong because the effect of individuals and their decisions is more important in this passage than the contributions of groups – sociology studies group behavior and social constructions.
(D) is wrong because the topic is international relations, not how the American government functions internally.
(E) is not likely either since a manual contains specific instructions, not a detailed historical account.
Re: During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas
[#permalink]
19 Sep 2021, 01:58
1
Expert Reply
Supreeth27112 wrote:
can anyone explain question 6,8 and 10?....got all correct except this in 12 minutes
Official Explanation
6. It can be inferred from the passage that Lansing’s dropping of the modus vivendi proposal seemed to represent:
Difficulty Level: Hard
Explanation
In the middle of the second paragraph, we read that in presenting his modus vivendi proposal, Lansing implied that the American government had accepted the German view that armed merchant vessels were warships.
Then, in the second sentence of paragraph 3, we read that by dropping the modus vivendi proposal, the Wilson administration seemed to be reverting to the British view on this question.
Therefore, as choice (A) states, the United States seemed to be reversing its position. Many of the other choices have merit but none are as precise as choice (A).
Answer: A
8. According to the passage, the U-boat was
Difficulty Level: Medium
Explanation
The passage tells us that “Lansing had implied that the American government regarded Allied armed merchant vessels as warships. This had been the German position all along, and they eagerly seized on the opening the Americans had created.” Thus, the Pandora’s box was the start of German attacks. Lansing’s subtle misrepresentation of the facts was enough for the Germans to justify their position.
(A) is incorrect because no further proposals are mentioned in the passage.
(C) is incorrect because Lansing was not necessarily misled himself. There is no evidence to suggest that in the passage.
(D) is incorrect because the Americans did not want to attack the Germans.
(E) is incorrect because the Pandora’s box does not represent the entire war, just the German attacks. There is also no evidence that Germany planned to have Lansing be the instigator of their attacks.
Answer: B
10. For what reason does the author say that the dropping of the modus vivendi had alarmed the pacifists?
Difficulty Level: Hard
Explanation
The quotation from Wilson’s letter in paragraph 3 is one piece of evidence for the correct answer here. Another is the fact that Wilson was evidently willing to risk a confrontation with Germany, and the risk of war that that entailed, in order to uphold the concept of international law. This fact helps eliminate choices (A) and (D).
Though the passage states that Wilson interpreted the Gore-Lars resolutions as a challenge to his leadership in foreign affairs, it does not suggest that his primary motive in opposing the resolutions was to suppress congressional opposition (C).
(E) might be true, but the relationship between America and Britain is not discussed in the quotation as a factor in Wilson’s decision.
Re: During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas
[#permalink]
29 Sep 2021, 07:59
Guys, I have been practising on and on in these long RCs and it seems like a never ending battle. Also, I got 8 correct out of 10. But took me 40 minutes. What am I doing wrong? It’s taking me a lot of time to understand these long passages. Please help.
Guys, I have been practising on and on in these long RCs and it seems like a never ending battle. Also, I got 8 correct out of 10. But took me 40 minutes. What am I doing wrong? It’s taking me a lot of time to understand these long passages. Please help.
During World War I, the issue of neutral rights on the seas
[#permalink]
29 Sep 2021, 09:33
Expert Reply
Frankly I must say two things
On one hand of the spectrum, we need to take the GRE, from the student's perspective, in a reasonable amount of time. Not in ten years from now.
ON THE OTHER edge, a person or a student who takes so long to read and understand a passage CANNOT and will not be able to fix this in a short period of time. Hands down.
It is the case that a GRE or GMAT passage is something written at an academic level. So if you take 40 minutes clearly you struggle with the Standard English Language.
Moreover, the advice to read the economist or the new yorker, which now seems the holy grail advice, will not work either. Because those readings are on the same level, more or less, of the GRE
Therefore, if you do not understand a GRE passage, then how could you understand the Economist that is professional writing ??
something does not fit well if not at all. I quote something that a student must keep in mind like gospel in a church
Quote:
if someone is going to spend a large number of hours, then those hours should be spent before the person starts taking on GRE-type problems. for instance, if the student can't read English fast enough, then that's a problem that must be addressed before he/she begins to look at GRE-style problems. if the student doesn't understand how to read passages for the main point, then that's a problem that must be addressed before he/she begins to look at GRE style problems. etc.
Quote:
if the student has gone through those materials and is still having considerable trouble, then one of the following three things (or more than one of them) is true:
(1) the student hasn't taken the time to learn how the problems work, and is just randomly trying to memorize things; (2) the student doesn't understand how to read and process the passages, and is basically reading as though the passages were just fact-fact-fact-fact; (3) the student isn't yet good enough at reading and understanding professionally written English.
notice that NONE of these three things is going to be fix-able by a greater volume of practice problems. if any of these three things is going on, additional practice problems won't fix the problem; in fact, additional practice is just going to cement the problem. as an analogy, think of someone with a totally wrong golf swing. now, think of what will happen if this person goes out and takes 10,000 practice swings at golf balls -- the person will still have exactly the same problems, but those problems will now be so thoroughly reinforced that they will be practically impossible to fix.
Notice how all the strategies in this world to improve WILL NOT work unless the student himself or herself does not address the issues above mentioned.
Regards
rx10 you are well in advance in the process...but not so advanced to hit 170!!
RC passages are not different being or involved in the Hokuto Shinken Battle Technique!!